tv Lectures in History CSPAN October 26, 2014 12:00am-1:21am EDT
thomas, six time candidate for president on the socialist party ticket said if barry goldwater became president, he would stop the advance of socialism in the united states. i think that is exactly what he will do. [applause] but as a former democrat, i can tell you norman thomas is not the only man who is drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. it goes back to 1936. mr. democrat himself, i'll smith, the great american came before the american people and charged the leadership of his party was taking his party down the road of marx, lenin, and stalin. he walked away from his party and never returned until the day he died. because to this day, the leadership of that party has taken that on a roll party down the road in the labor socialist party.
it does not require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. what does it mean whether you will be deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? and such machinery already exists. the government can find them charge to bring against any can learn it chooses to prosecute. every businessman has his own tale of harassment. has takena perversion place. our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government and freedom has never been so fragile to our grasp as it is at this moment. american history tv sits in with a lecture from one of the nation's college
professors. next, vanderbilt university professor sarah igo talks about the societal shift that occurred during the early 20th century as modernization impacted businesses and households. igo focuses on the literary works of the string frederick and frederick winslow taylor, who sought to improve industrial efficiency. this class is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> all right. great. hello, everybody. as you know, we will take up the work and agineering person. i put up here the cover of one of theodore dreiser's novels, "sister carrie," and what we have been considering is a kind of fictional assault, right? on the victorian moral order. in theodore dreiser's case, in naturalistic fiction.
the attempt to get close to urban reality and recorded in the form -- record it in the form of an adventure. he set his story, as you know, in the booming, bustling town of chicago. and to use chicago as a kind of character in this story, to look at the booms, the busts, the travails of the characters in his novel. just to summarize where we got last time, we saw the workings of many things. not just a story, but a kind of commentary on early 20th-century century america and especially urban industrial america. we saw the workings of a new economy. the novel espoused as a kind of -- the novel itself as a kind of allegory for capitalism and especially consumer culture that was constantly on the move, in which styles, fashions, identities, characters all -- fall and rise. and importantly, they fall and rise without rhyme or reason.
right? identities that you put on like a costume and shed as costume -- as characters move on to their new role. int has to do with carrie her own story and the culture of the early twin century. and we keep this moving. we focus on one more. desire. desire as a kind of engine in the story. wanting what you cannot have. always being able to see what is ahead of you. that is elusive that you are trying to grab. that is what makes things happen in the novel. remember, carrie is never satisfied. recall the department store. she feels the claim of each trinket and valuable on her. we talked about the moral of the
story a moral for the 20th century maybe that there are no morals. good things happen to bad people. people are not punished for bad deeds. , they are like carrie rewarded. what theodore dreiser did was invert the success story of the victorian period. the changing of fortunes was not the result of strong character or planning. you think back to horatio alger's story. fortune was the result of accidents. random occurrences. and here, theodore dreiser tells us, think what henry adams feared so much. economy of dynamo, not a
virtue. you start to see how dreiser is picking up on these anxieties of early 20th century urban commercial life. and finally, i think this takes us into the discussion for today. dreiser told us a model for the self, one that is much less anchored than in booker t. washington or even horatio alger's story. a self that was passive, being acted upon by all kinds of forces. kind of darwinian. remember, carrie was a waste and it forces, a lone figure. and importantly in chicago, she occupied a world of surfaces. always concerned with her outward appearance.
the self is purely external. it is not internal. it is something that is very much radiating outward. dreiser helps us answer a question, which i'm going to put this way -- how does a culture -- a cultural system come to an end? we talked about the genre of intellectual history. there are no beginning and ending dates -- there are no dates to anything, but i think this novel coming at the beginning of the 20th century shows as many of the assumptions of the victorian age coming to a close. many will continue on, and i hope we will get to some of that today. he is putting a nail in the coffin of the victorian age. today comes from a very different place seemingly. in the world of the novel.
it is the imagined system, and maybe even the utopia of the engineer. a new kind of hero in this new century. we are going to turn to a new class of experts in the early 20th century, the so-called machine age, an age of mass production, skyscrapers. and the experts that would become prominent, not just to figured out -- to figure out how society works, but also to their promise that they could design an american society a new, right? that they could design a more seamlessly running united states. ok, one of the watchwords there is certainly efficiency in our reading for today. ok, so we have already seen hints of this expert character coming to before in american culture. this is a character not unlike carrie, who becomes prominent in this. , and i would say especially during world war i.
1914 to 1918, around which much of our readings for today prosper. progressives were pragmatists, people like tom dewey who we we have read, and walt whitman, who you read for today, all part of an intellectual circle, in this case centered in the new republic. the war itself was a tool. it was not just an event. it was not just a tragedy. it was a tool that could be used like a cell phone. world war i was a war of technical management. it was a promise of the war itself. it is something that comes out of the war era. it will create new bureaucracies, new careers and it will help to elevate the status of expertise in american culture. remember here the prescient
critique -- about the rise of war technique and his deep unease in terms of what the war was doing and producing people who could just get things done. so, during the war, it was not just troops and arms and people who were organized, but minds were organized as well. this was one of the first modern wars in terms of propaganda, advertising, morale building strategies that keeps people in support of the war. did not always work, of course. government bureaus devoted to shaping opinions. advertisers would be pressed into a helping win this war. they would help americans decide how to think about this war.
if we think about engineering in this broad sense, there are many new professions coming into being to organize, administer them accord and eight the society. as i mentioned, early 20th-century culture heroes were not preachers particularly, didactic preachers of the 19th century. they were not cynics like theodore dreiser. but those, we might say, who know how things work. engineers and experts. henry ford who helped incorporate the vertical integration of a whole industry. lumber, glass plants, lumber. we might think of someone like frederick winslow taylor, who you read for today, the inventor and proponent of scientific management. breaks up tasks, analyzing them systematically, right? to find the one best way.
importantly note that taylor is an engineer -- not just of machines and materials, but of people. of workers. this era would even come with, close with and experts resident. herbert hoover. we often think of them for other reasons, the great depression. -- this era would even come with, close with an expert president. he made his career, as one of those experts, running the u.s. food administration and he is a worldwide champion for his incredible economy and efficiency in helping relief victims during the war. there were experts in the 19th century. expert saw a sort. but they did not doing a lot of good. if you think about the practice of medicine, for example, and
they were not subject to professional regulation in the way that they would in the 20th century. this is true of doctors, lawyers, professors. it is really the u.s. army in the early 20th century, really during world war i, that the united states gets its first modern experts. they are engineers. they are bridge builders and so forth. there is a precursor certainly in the civil war. but we really see this in play in world war i. by the 20th century, there are engineers of all sorts. of cities, subways, machines, and factories. also personnel and personnel techniques. there are engineers of households. there are engineers even of desire, if you want to think of advertisers that way.
publicists, right? there are engineers of politics as well, and this is where i want to begin today, because we're going to start with walter litman. in all of these cases we see what we recognize as the rather tight grip of protestant anglo-saxon culture ceding to a new class of engineer who takes the reins in the 20th century and takes charge of the culture itself in certain ways. so, people and the texts we are going to look at today -- frederick winslow taylor, christine frederick -- and efficiency engineer of the
household in her book "the new housekeeping." john d. watson, famous for his advocacy of behaviorist psychology. , who will lippmann become a kind of fixture of american punditry, social commentary. he may seem out of place in this group, but i want to suggest he is an engineer too, coming right , out of the protestant progressive and pragmatist tradition, embodying those traditions, an engineer of politics and public life. what do i mean by that? people like him and his colleagues -- most famously at the new republic, were in favor of fact-finding and
experimentation in politics. that should ring some pragmatist bells, right? and -- jamesane's and john dewey. they were in favor of things like city utility commissions to figure out rates and the distribution of prices and the ownership of public utilities. yeah. they wanted experts on workplace regulation to draft legislation, not politicians. people who knew something about regulation to draft the legislation. they were for collecting data about social trends, so they could become the object of not just investigation, but action by the federal government. they are very much fact finders. in a different way than dreiser was. he wants to give you facts to show you how things work. -- were. lippmann'ssives in
circle wants to give you the facts and act on them. one of his colleagues advocated that the government just be scrapped, abolished and instead just put experts to run the states. you can think of various occupations that come into being at this point. in time sanitary engineers, the city commissioner, legislation like the pure food and drug act that come out of this interest in putting experts in charge. rather than everyday politics, right? in its tumbling, messy way. at this point very much part of an object of critique by progressives. because of the unruly all addicts of the cities which had a tinge of corruption. no, there is a dark side to all of this administration and organizational politics. this is also the age were voting
restrictions are really perfected in keeping certain white workers, but also certainly african-americans out of the voting booths in the name of better government. middle-class women on the other hand, just on the cusp of obtaining the vote, could make the case that they are better, more educated, better fit voters than these other groups. this is the age of eugenics as well, which we will return to. there is a dark side to this dependence on experts and expert judgment, but from the point of view of our authors, and this is where we will stay, i think today, it all looks good, right? they celebrate the new abilities of experts to design american culture. all right. so let's begin with walter lippmann. his masterwork here -- "drift and mastery." this edition is 1917, but it
comes out in 1914. look at this quote. men find themselves working and thinking and feeling an -- in relation to an environment that is without precedent in the history of the world. let's talk about lippman, what he thinks the way he does and what is at stake for him and all of this. yes? >> one thing that i thought resonated in all of the texts, purpose in place of tradition. we have, i guess we had the victorian order of to this point, just doing what was dictated or expected of us, and he suggested there were other ways, namely the scientific method. >> yeah, does he remind you of anyone we have read before?
>> [indiscernible] >> right. the scientific method as a way of living. of shedding our assumptions about authoritarian and traditional a priori ways of thinking. he is right in line with william james in that regard. but he used this word -- "purpose." what does he mean by purpose? what does he contrasted with? >> he contrasted it with tradition, which kind of made me think of ward, how we can make our own mark on the world instead of letting life bring us along? >> yes, ward, who we read in the late 19th century, showing some resonances here, absolutely. this notion of action, being
very important. action that goes against -- the liberally -- tradition. look how he against. tradition will not work in the complexity of modern life. something in that language to notice -- he says it will not work. not that it is bad or immoral. notice the emphasis on getting results. tradition is not going to work for us. what tradition anyway? there are so many different kinds of people in this nation who have many different fathers, right? you have the southern plantation, refugees from russia, this is not going to work. to just call on some imagined tradition. it might be useful to know that walter lippmann himself comes from a jewish-german family, so opens up to a sense of who are
the ancestors here in america. >> it is like a call for action. for not living life passively. he says you have to deal with life deliberately like it is something you have to run up against and formulate your own methods. i mean, it connects to all of the other readings in applying a method to all of the other ways of going through life. >> right. applying a method. the fact that you need a method, number one, and number two, you have to apply it. and if you do not do that, what is the alternative? what are you doing? what kind of language do they use? >> you are drifting. >> drifting. wandering around. you are drifting. what else? matthew. >> he calls it -- [indiscernible] -- a life of trivial your
intestines. iridescence. >> yeah. >> he says -- [indiscernible] a progressively powerful way of domesticating the brute. >> yeah, that's right. that's right. again, like ward, people can take charge of this brute existence. they do not have to drift. note the title of the book. "drift and mastery." those are the polls. poles. he also uses this language of dreaming and sleeping. why does he use those words? look at -- it is the paragraph, i don't know, two thirds of the way down on 273. there is indeed a dreaming quality of life, moved as it is from within by an unconscious desire and from outside by brute
forces of climate. there are stretches every day where we have no sense of ourselves. and then he goes on to talk about the beginning of reflection, which he characterizes as being awake during our own lifetime. why does he use that language of dreaming and sleeping and unconscious? any clues? yeah. >> i think it has to do with what you were talking about in earlier classes about how there is this real consciousness about americans entering a modern period, leaving behind an age where we did not know anything. and now entering a new age and discovering. >> consciousness, reflection. think of words like rationality. also, you start to see here, i think, the rise of new psychological concepts. the unconscious, the
subconscious void, a look the things that are helping to move us around without us knowing it. lippmann says, wake up. you have to be in charge. >> also being called to action instead of taking a more passive stance, but also the context of freudian psychological -- >> he does not mention freud there rectally here at all, but ideas areall of these coming. they are not deeply popular yet. that will be a later date, but freud has been to the united states by now and this notion of this unconscious roiling cauldron inside people making them do things they are not aware they are doing is there as well. yes. >> also by using the word
dreaming, what comes to mind is a kind of idealism and he talked about this before -- when i thought he was a pragmatist, but when he says it calls to return back to nature, this is like an animal that tried to eat itself. it could manage with the hind legs, but the head presented difficulty. when we are dreaming, we are doing things that are not moving us to an action, falling back on this paradox almost. >> that's right. and when we are moving and living our lives in that way, we are doing it unreflectively, unconsciously. and the task of the modern -- the trick of the modern person is to master that. right? notice at the bottom of the first full paragraph, this could be a description again of carrie
in dreiser's novel. he says, you put yourself at the mercy of stray ideas. accident becomes the master. the accident of your own training and you become what -- the plaything of whatever has accumulated at the bottom of your mind. here, the first of a priori thinking. carrie adopting whatever standard is right in front of her. yeah, rebecca? >> [indiscernible] it talks about how you can just follow happiness because it is elusive. living in an unaccountable world, which often made me think of carrie. it is not going to work. you're going to have to find something better. >> yeah, yeah. dreiser was content to describe it. this is how things happen. he did not try to correct it. he did not try to critique it.
one way we can read lippmann -- i do not know if he ever read "sister carrie." he might have. he says that model is not enough. we have the responsibility of reflection and consciousness and of bringing these root desires, impulses under our power. what does he -- toward the end of the excerpt here, what does he raise as perhaps the biggest concern about this world without tradition, a world in which conscious action is the only rule? what does he worry about there at the end and try to preempt? take a look at page 176. yeah, libby? >> it is no idle question to ask what prompts the modern man to bind his world together.
that there might be, like, a confusion and wonder of what man's place is, and we have to answer that there is no such certainty, and you were kind of accepting the uncertainty. >> he is accepting the uncertainty, saying you have a kind of anti-foundationalism, right? and he is saying this is the real question -- what binds people together? this is all we have got. we do not have a common tradition. we do not have a common god. we do not have a common code. >> yeah, he is saying it requires a certain courage, that you are essentially confronting this modern world without the meaning provided by these traditions. >> yeah. >> so, that responsibility is --
i don't think he is necessarily pessimistic about it. he seems to be offering science as a substitute to provide some of that meaning, but it is nonetheless scary to go off -- throw off these old traditions and accept modernity in all of its reality. >> yeah, absolutely. you are capturing his tone precisely. this is threatening, but also thrilling. he really does see this is a new moon would -- moment in human history. what we have is -- none of these crutches, what we depended on the past. what we do have is science. the scientific spirit. this is the top of 175. the discipline of democracy. this is what might yet bind people together. >> just going to that general note of it, it seems that the
framework for which political rhetoric has taken off since then, he talks on 173, the only possible confusion is the loyalty that only looks forward. and i recall the description of what defines america, the emphasis on only looking forward. his emphasis of moving forward with something extra. it is a little extra oomph that unites us all. >> right. that idea, loyalty only moving forward. you have to think of this is a very modernist notion of what loyalty is. loyalty is to be something that you know. something you are already aware of. something you have already committed to. he says the only loyalty is for moving forward. >> i thought it was interesting the connection he drew between science and democracy instead of government and both are the embodiment of modern self purpose and self direction and moving forward. >> yeah, exactly.
it should remind us a little bit of john dewey, the philosophy of democracy. really, lippmann is talking about science and democracy. but it is the same sort of argument. but there is a way of taking thinking about human action that is consonant with our best political option, right? democracy. finding ways of thinking with this intellectual predisposition with a kind of government, i -- a kind of order. terrific. ok. anything else about lippmann? you noticed his anti-religious arguments here. right. he calls religion a kind of mirage, something to make little people feel big, right? he is a relentlessly secular thinker here, much like another who thought religion was an authoritarian way of thinking
for people who had not arrived at reflection and consciousness. you can see some residents there. religion places human action in a large and friendly setting, right? all is not well thereafter for religion. friendly here is the opposite of rigorous. of taking charge of one's intellect and one's own consciousness. let's use lippmann as a kind of backdrop. his work as a writer and a public intellectual thinker to what we might think of as engineers during today from such -- beginning with frederick winslow taylor. just a tiny bit of background on taylor and what he was responding to. his book, which sums up his theories of management, his
scientific management -- he really introduces that term into the discourse in 1911. he is responding of course in part to new workplaces in which mass production assembly lines were the rule rather than the exception. we know by the 20th century it is clear that crafts and artisanship are on the decline with the mechanization of factories, that work is being rationalized in all kinds of ways, systematized, even in normal management, right? that he critiques. and there are many worries over what are called works discipline in this period. workers who are not as malleable as employers would like from the
drinking, and since he is them, -- problems with drinking, absenteeism, soldiering. you all know what that is now. all these things are a problem and there is incredibly high turnover rate in these factories as well. this is the industrial scene taylor is looking at. already a history of struggle over labor-management relations sometimes turning , violent. battles really for control over the shop floor. ok? this is where taylor is coming in. his solutions are meant to solve those problems. taylor himself -- these are just a couple of photographs from workplaces. i actually do not know what this one is. some sort of mechanical -- but here, we know frederick winslow taylor, he was educated. he had poor eyesight, actually. the story goes he was headed to
harvard law school and winds up a mechanical engineer in a factory who moves his way up and becomes famous. he becomes a public figure in the middle of a railroad dispute where he is brought in as an expert to testify. he in this way positions himself in certain ways outside the labor-capital nexus. right? he claims to be on neither of those sides but on both sides. he will receive for his effort a gold medal at the paris expedition of 1900. the same place for henry adams. and he went on to teach business school at dartmouth. a couple things about taylor -- the stopwatch, a kind of symbol
that taylor brought into the factory. the stopwatch with the decimal face here. he and others in this period are fascinated by what is known as time and motion studies. studier toly a time see how long things take him up but he becomes a motion study -- take but he becomes a motion studier, made possible by photographer, to capture movement that was before not able to be captured and seen by the human eye. the motion studies captured here. also someone leapfrogging. i am not sure why he would need those. nevertheless he became famous for these motion study is. as did frank and lillian gilchrist. are those names familiar? anyone read "cheaper by the dozen"? that was written by their
children. and they did studies to analyze things like -- here, a golf swing. and you start seeing appearing in factories the expert, here in the white court, noting things -- white coat, noting things down. watching workers of all sorts do their tasks and do them better. this cartoon is matching a very well. is saying to systematized. the worker has a gauge on his back. and the novel about the efficiency experts. and this is the clock watching the woman typist here. here, i want to ask you, having
read a portion of taylor's tract, what does it say for taylor? what are his rationales? what is the subtext? why is management the solution? what is he worried about? we might even say what is he up -- obsessed about? yes? >> efficiency. >> efficiency. efficiency and the flip side to that is -- how does he begin? do you remember? there is this introduction about roosevelt, teddy roosevelt. >> about how humans are now not only inefficient, but lazy and how we have to mobilize and how that affects us as a nation, having a efficient populace.
right. he pulls from this roosevelt speech on natural conservation. on the heels of that, what have we missed? all of this wasted motion, wasted human effort. he says we can see and hear the waste of material things. this is in the middle of the third page of the and reduction. awkward, inefficient, or ill directed movement of men leave little tangible behind them. hence the important thread of photography, watches, ways of recording wasted movement. so, he is interested in waste. the problem of waste. the solution, of course, is efficiency. we could ask why, if he is so -- is he so worried about waste -- why? any ideas there? why be obsessed about waste? it is not just taylor, of course. it is christine frederick and others. yeah, kelly?
>> one obvious reason throughout his riding is just -- right writing is the profit incentive. we can use the same amount of workers or less workers. even if you pay them higher wages, if they put in more effort. so employers and employees have that incentive. >> one part of it is simple profit maximization. what does taylor seem equally concerned with? as he claims, he is not only on he is not on the employer's side. but he is not on the employee's side either. he is interested in solving the problem of industrial capital. think of henry george, right? he had a solution to this. which was to tax land. carnegie had a solution to this, which was philanthropy, and the
administration of wealth. what is taylor's solution? >> he seems very -- he is trying to create a place within the changing modernization of the workplace for the worker and the manager, and i got that from frederick as well. things are evolving in terms of how humans fit in this place ? >> definitely creating a place. you could even say a wage. importantly college educated. a different kind of man. right? even though he himself had occupied those positions on the floor. but a place for the manager. >> he talks that presently 90% or 95% of the work is done by the workers doing all the jobs, but he proposes if it could be more 50%/50% workers doing their job and 50% manager is taking
over with the training and explaining how it should be done and correcting people, soap -- so making a much bigger role and much more responsibility for the manager. >> what was the old way of doing things? the workers have a lot of knowledge, the know-how in the running of the factory floor. and what about the role of the owner? the head of the corporation. the person, the andrew carnegie, right, who has the brilliance to run these enterprises? yes? >> the old owner would be really detached from their employers -- -- their employees. >> yeah. that the manager -- the manager is in between, right? as kind of, if you think in machine terms, kind of a
modulator between the owner of capital and the worker, and it is not just one person either. we are talking about an office, a desk, data recording. he is talking about a phalanx of new people inserting themselves dder,e middle of that la that used to go from worker to floor man, to maybe a managerial position in the factory. instead, taylor's scientific managers are going to swoop right in on that middle plane. we are talking about changing the structure of work. changing social mobility, too, changing the ladder. although he does not dwell on that. but he does dwell on the fact that you need a different kind of man then is on the floor. why is that?
what is so complicated about management that you need this rather elaborate structure? >> the manager is responsible for figuring out the most efficient way of teaching to workers on the floor because they get stuck in there will -- rule of tom. thumb. >> rule of thumb, right? anyway, he says, it has worked for centuries and it certainly has improved. techniques have gotten better. but it is no match to the scientific observation and study of the best possible technique. >> also, the harsh assessment he made of the machine workers -- he says [indiscernible] that she resembles in his mental makeup the ox more than any other type. the word "percentage" has no meaning to him. him really far below the planner/manager type. he also says there is always going to be people like that. kind of a nature over nurture thing.
he says, some people will always be born lazy and inefficient and greedy and brutal and the manager is the key to harnessing their physical strength, which it seems like that is obvious. but they don't have anything else. >> he does apply this in many different industries. he begins with the most rude rute kind of work. those men just picking up pig iron and moving it from one place to another. and then he cites these remarkable statistics, right? the average -- 12 and a half pounds or something? by the end of his experiment they are carrying 47 pounds of pig iron in a day without being tired and trotting home. there are people that are essentially made for doing that kind of work, right? not the manager, but a certain kind of human is made for that. >> i think the other thing he thinks the manager is responsible for -- at the very
end of the piece -- looking for the qualities the lower labor class does have an putting them in the correct position. he is very clear they do not have the same skills as the manager, they do not have as many skills, but they do have a skill set that can be used. so it is the manager's responsibility to figure that out for them. >> yeah, very nice. the manager is not just recording, breaking down tasks. he is fitting the right man to the right job. there are a couple things going on here. one is systematizing. finding the one best way. this is his phrase. for every job, there is one best way to do it. at the same time, there is this -- think of standardization as these masses of men in a way. you have to have an interview with each of these men to determine which job they should be in.
on the one hand, there is the individualization of the worker. on the other hand, the slotting of the worker into just the right place in the industrial machine. an interesting tension to think about. he uses that word individual and individualizing quite a bit. and actually a lot of the -- spends quite a bit of time talking to workers, making sure they are doing things just right, that they are in the right position in the first place. scientific management as taylor describes it is the modern way to work. we have discussed how workers and management were doing things in an outmoded, less scientific way. what are things that he -- what are the big problems he identifies besides just waste? that he is very concerned with. that might be his prime bogeyman, right?
waste. what does he come up with in terms of the ways workers conduct themselves? we talk about soldiering a little bit. what is the problem with soldiering? what is soldiering, first of all? a word that has gone completely out of our vocabulary. >> kind of working the system in the form that you work as little as possible to make it seem like you are working as much as possible. simply under working, but there is effort going into under working. >> yes. work slowdown. very deliberate. how do they happen? why do they happen? >> they talked about the policy -- fallacy that if you work too much you are going to put other people out of business or out of work. and he credits that to the labor unions. and i got a sense through the piece that if you insert this level of management you can do away with the labor unions because you have someone addressing the issues you are having.
and issues that the big person on top is having. >> yes. very nice. suspicious definitely of the collectivity of workers either in a union or in a compact. even without a union he would say oblong assembly-line workers, you go as slow as you possibly can. you do not outpace your neighbor, because then it becomes clear that everybody could be working faster to read -- faster. at the end of the day, that is going to hurt you and your trade, right? everyone will be paid less. some of it is wrong thinking he is concerned about. also it is the collectivity, too. it is a way of breaking something that allowed workers to work together. yes. >> he also interestingly attributed some of it to just
ignorance. that the reason why people soldier is the inefficient rule of thumb in all trades and how these rules are passed down from generation to generation, this is how to work, this is the best way, as opposed to with the scientific managers, they can find other ways to surpass the rule of thumb method. >> yeah, so again when we zoom out from taylor, thinking about this time and the emphasis on novelty. some of it is breaking with the past. i think taylor may show is in a more concrete form than most of our writers what that means. it means breaking the old rule of thumb, traditions, worker solidarity. this intricate, nuanced, quite settled system of social control workers had over each other. he would argue it is the workers, not the owners, controlling the shop floor.
and they shouldn't be because it encourages laziness and soldiering and it is also not in the workers' best interest and that, maybe the worker is not intelligent enough to figure out. this is what you need the educated manager to prove, as he did, and he tells that story of his own struggle with his friends, right, to get them to work harder and the threats he was subject to. the intimation anyway of violence against him for trying to get them to speed up and become more productive. so, that is his own personal story, moves right into this tract in scientific management. so he is arguing, if you want to think of it that way, he is arguing with owners and corporations. he is also arguing with unions and workers and the people that
are the key, ready to step in, the men, the man at the desk. all right. there is obviously more we could say here about taylor, his attitude toward workers, the kind of resistance that workers and unions mounted against taylorism, which becomes a word in this period. but i would like us to think about taylor's example, the template that he would set for other fields and enterprises during this period, too. [the question of what is lost in taylor's factory and think back to adams. none of that is taylor's concern. his concern is we have a new , mode of production here.
how do we make it more efficient? had we make the machine batch -- the machine, which includes the people, how do we make it more efficient? how do we get rid of the friction in the system? that is how you make things more efficient. and those concerns of the late 19th century about the goals of the workers, their humanity is put to the side. yes. >> does he replace taylor, supplement taylor? >> ford -- i think in many ways he adopts certain aspects of taylorism and others he doesn't. he comes up with the idea of the five dollar day and leisure as an incentive for workers to produce. and if you work at ford, you earn enough to buy the products. there is a different theory, i think, in bedded in ford's factory. but most industries at this time were taken up with the idea of systematizing the individual
tasks, breaking them down into ever smaller pieces. let's move on to christine frederick. i want to make sure we talk about the new housekeeping. she was not the first to hit on this idea of a household engineer. the whole profession of home to then -- home economics is becoming a new industry. home economics will be taught in school. did any of you take home ec? it has its roots and this -- its roots are in this period. it is a really interesting colonization of something that it was thought individual households did, was passed on from mothers to daughters, think of the beecher sisters, talking about home management.
home economics as a field, a al domain, experts creating curricula as a turn of -- it is a turn of the century invention. again that is not christine , frederick. that looks like christine frederick. here is christine frederick. note the titles that she uses. household engineer and professional consultant. one question we might pose here -- i think you can see how someone like frederick is indebted to someone like taylor. much has the envisioning of the household changed.
think about the beecher sisters. what has changed and what remains the same? nothing is totally a break with the past. >> begins with the idea of scientific management and brings it to household routines. everything is planned out. the very end i was there interested where she threw out -- women are leaving, becoming mothers -- women are leaving becoming mothers to go join the workforce. [indiscernible] it was kind of her taking new methods, but keeping the victorian idea of the household intact. >> very nice. the end result is the same. the rationale maybe has changed. >> [indiscernible] someone focused on raising children and morals and family. and christine frederick is all like how to cook food quickly.
like it is very focused on duties of the household, but she does not want to talk about raising her children. or it she mentions them, it is how to keep her children from getting in the way of her chores. it seems like they were almost like keeping her from cooking and doing that stuff. >> yes. interfering with her well-planned day. she refers to them interestingly as the boy and the baby, these stock characters. she is able to have the baby playing. she refers to them almost -- yes, a very unidealized way. >> i was impressed how she included the children. she specifically had an hour every day to just sit and play with them or watch them play while she did something else. she did definitely incorporate them into her schedule, which i thought was impressive and did
remind me of the beecher sisters. it was like setting an example from a very early age -- >> yes, this is a long development, thinking him a very -- thinking, very consciously reflectively about how the , household runs. it does not run on its own and there might be ways to improve it. now the beecher sisters had a more spiritual notion of it then christine frederick. you can see them talking to each other across time. >> [indiscernible] the drudgery of the kitchen and wanting to make it worthwhile. it gets boring after a while, so you want to make it feel like you are doing something -- like i am not saying housework is not an important thing to be doing. i could see it being a very unfulfilling thing for women to be doing.
>> and she uses that word. drudgify, right? and drudgery. so she is admitting in a way the beecher sisters might not have that this is work. so why not speed it up? cut out some steps? if the dishes can be on the drain board, they can air dry, and you do not have to wipe them down with a cloth. there are ways to systematize and actually a kind of pleasure in these systemization for its own sake.